Real Time Strategy games and First Person Shooters are the most popular game genres there is. But I've been thinking about how these two could be combined to provide a new type of gameplay, a First Person Real Time Strategy (FPRTS).

There is a game that I've played alot and enjoy, called BattleZone II. It provides this type of gameplay I'm talking about, but it is the only one in existance that I know. The gameplay this game provides it extraordinary, and even though it's a 7 year old game I prefer to play it over all these new games.

BattleZone II provides the multiplayer gameplay from Battlefield, team play and cooperation, and the strategy from Warcraft/Starcraft/C&C's.

Imagine a multiplayer game where there are 2 teams playing against each other, and 4 or 5 people in each time. In each team there is 1 base commander, responsible for building the base, and building units/defense structures. Just like in C&C, except this base commander is *in-the-game*, a soldier, that is inside some vehicle. The other players on this team are "thugs", or "pilots", for the base commander. They are soldiers, but pilot vehicles to cover the terrain and fight the enemy team.

The goals in the game is to build a base, secure resources (like in c&c), fight for terrain dominance, advance the tech tree, build superior weapons and units, and destroy the enemy base with assault with help of all sorts of AI units.

What I feel like is missing from RTS games is the sense of *being-in-there*, and not just controlling stupid AI units like you were a God. I want to take charge of the meanest biggest unit there, like some Mammoth Walker, and put some cool weapons on it, and slaughter the enemy units and base.

And then, in games like Battlefield, you have this sense of *being-in-there*, but still, you've lost the gameplay that RTS games provide, with a base, structures, tech tree, resources etc.

The biggest problem is: you need twice the development, and you're not garanteed to double your sales. In fact, if you're not very careful, you might decrease your sales because the FPS crowd dislikes the RTS elements and the RTS crowd dislikes the FPS elements.

You guys are thinking it the wrong way. You do not need to implement two games in one game, it's all about incorporating RTS features into a FPS game.

This idea of mine wouldn't include "gameplay modes", being able to switch from Commander-View (RTS) and to Fighter-View (FPS). You'll always be in FPS mode, but having all the options that RTS offers. This Savage game is going way off course.

There are many ways to have the RTS control incorporated into a FPS mode without having to having two kinds of modes. Think-outside-the-box

Yeah, instead of having an FPS view that switches to an overhead view for RTS activity, you could have only an FPS perspective with *in-game computers* that displayed the status of your armies. Then through the FPS controls, you could make your avatar sit at the keyboard and select units with *his* mouse instead of directly with your own! Think of the possibilities!

*removes tongue from cheek*

Sorry, I've never cared for RTS games... but this concept seemed so wild halfway through a cup of coffee that it seemed worth sharing.

It would be interesting, but difficult to deal with the view while keeping the player immersed- RTS needs a top-down view and FPS needs the narrow 3D window. Performance would be hard too - I don't think Warcraft 3 even has true 3D terrian that is painted every frame, its stationary and only the moving figures are rendered with each frame. Maybe you'll have to do this to get reasonable performance

I have a question about the UI. From a player's perspective, the information and controls needed for both types of games are pretty different. That's a big reason others have offered up the concept of multiple interfaces into the same game world. What you propose sounds like a single UI that allows an FPS-style player to issue RTS level orders as well.

Assuming that's correct, and using C&C as an example:

Narative: The player takes on the role of a commander assigned to lead his forces. When he lands he's running out in front of his MCV and initial toops to locate the correct place to build a bace. When he finds it, he orders the MCV to deploy and sets up his troops to patrol the area to find resources and flush out any enemies. He then gives orders to the new command center to errect a power facility, but before he can tell them where to put it a small force of enemy troops charges in thru the woods. Picking up his MP5 he charges forward. None of the scouts can be allowed to survive or they would reveal thier location...

How to Play: I guess you could have a dedicated communication pad that would allow you to issue orders to your construction and training facilities. This can remain tucked away behind an icon until needed. Likewise for grouping and controlling your troops. You would need a dedicated display to pop out that would allow you to view your forces and assign them into groups to make management easier. Then, sending these forces out on missions wouldn't be too hard, but commanding them in battle would be something else completely. In FPS you are line of sight only. So to command troops to strike targets not directly visable to you would require a high-level view of the battle field. Again, another pop out could manage this.

Concern #1: Many players may find managing the multiple controls to be cumbersome, especially in combat. if you are actively participating in a fire fight ( why else would you want to have FPS options? ) and you need to tell your tanks to take the bridge 2k meters north of your position, you would need to find a safe place to hide, call up your tactical controls and issue the orders. Even with shortcuts this could still be five seconds or so before you're looking down your gunsight again. Five seconds is a long time in a firefight.

This is the reason you usually see leaders in real combat staying well behind the safe zones and a reason I think players may do the same. To be honest, if my presence as a single entity on the battle field is not very significant, then I don't have much reason to be there. Why put myself at risk when I can hang back and just issue orders? With luck, my waves of assault buggies and medium tanks will take out the player of my enemy since he's charging around with a minigun like some sort of Rambo.

Again, this is mostly geared at moder or future based games. In a fantasy setting it may be different. If your character is a "hero" that really is stronger and more powerful than normal units then they really can make a difference. Picture the great battles of the LotR movies with the heros charging thru hoards of orcs, killing them by the dozens, while the regular troops fell around them. That would probably justify them being directly involved in the combat. But again, maybe waiting off to the side until the time was right.

Of course, there is sitll the RTS factor to consider. In most movies and books from a fantasy or early historical perspective, the commanders laid out their plans in advance of the battle, so while they were charging forward to glory they would only have to signal to their trusted lieutenant to launch the calvary charge to the enmies flank or shoot the flaming arrows into the hidden moat of oil. Then they would go back to slashing thier enemies to kibble.

If you had an oportunity to lay out your battle plan on a map in advance of the engagement then maybe you could group your forces and give them initial commands ( "horse group one: outflank left", "horse group two: charge center", "archers: fire center" ) and put them all under hotkeys or such. Then, when you are in battle and the enemy has committed forces against you, you can order the left-flank assault. If your enemy things you are trying to out flank and sends forces to defend, you may want to call in your second calvary to join you in a massive strike up the center. If all goes bad and you need to signal a retreat, your archers are standing by to help disrupt anyone following you.

You would want a way to issue some basic orders to all ( "retreat", "mop up", "ride to ruin!", etc.) for the inevitable points of the battle where your initial plans are just no longer appropriate. But otherwise, as long as you keep things abstracted to the point where you're not trying to command at the macro level it may work and be enjoyable.

I think a key would be to try to build a prototype using very basic block symbols for units and see if it's any fun.

Ever played Battlefield2?There is the commander that has limited control of some stuff.And in order to use them he must activate his interface and do it.Problem is, you will have to stay in one place while doing it.And it only works when you are alive...

If you look at top-left, you see the power status. +1 means that the player can build 1 more building without losing power.The next icons are:- Navs (~)- Recycler (1) (the command center)- Factory (2)

When you press those keys (~ , 1 or 2) then you get a menu coming out of them, and you're able to select some option. This you can do while even dogfighting.

Navs are nav points you can place on the map.. so if you find some interesting place you want to place your units, or defend some resources there, you can place a nav there, and you can easily send units to that location wherever you are.

Now the interesting part. The F-keys (F1-F12) are used to control your units. Both the commander and thugs can have units assigned to them, for instance, the commander can build a tank, and it appears on his F keys. The commander can select it by pressing the relevant F key, and then assign it to some player on his team. Then that player can either go into that tank and pilot it, or use it as a assistance on the field. The player can even give this tank to someone else who might want or need it, by doing the same thing as the commander did. In BZ2 (battlezone II) all the players on the team are on the F keys also, burt starting at F12, F11, F10 etc. So, you can select your pilots, and give them a order... like "HELP ME", or "GO TO THIS LOCATION", "DEFEND BASE".

At the bottom you have the radar, and the minimap (can toggle by using 'R' key) so you can see where you are located on the map and where your units and team-mates are located.

The weapons on the ship you're piloting are the AT-STAB, MINIGUN, MORTAR... and you simply toggle between them using the right-mouse click. Green thingy indicates the health you have, and the blue the ammo you have.

This interface solves all the problems I can think of regarding the RTS gameplay in FPS.

Of course I'm not suggesting that the interface in BZ2 should be used, but it does provide us with an idea how this RTS problem can be solved in a FPS game.

I do believe there is a market for games like this. The current markets are flooded with RTS and FPS games, people are bored of it...and are looking for something different.

You should grap a copy of BattleZone II, and try out this gameplay for yourself. Doing a multiplayer game is great, especially when you have everyone on your team on Ventrilo and are coordinating everything.

Well, keeping down the number of units under a single player's control is a major benefit. I was picturing you wanted something like the traditional RTS where there could be dozens of units on the battlefield, all under your direct control. Also, the BZ2 model you use practically forces a team-play scenario. I'm not sure if a near-mandatory team model is what you're after ( sometimes I feel like I'm the only person left for who online game != mandatory team play ).

My next question of course: Considering your first post was to help define a "new type of gameplay" for FPRTS, how does your BZ2 example not meet your definition of a FPRTS game? What is it lacking that you would like to implement if you had the resources to do so? That may help narrow the discussion.

My next question of course: Considering your first post was to help define a "new type of gameplay" for FPRTS, how does your BZ2 example not meet your definition of a FPRTS game? What is it lacking that you would like to implement if you had the resources to do so? That may help narrow the discussion.

Well, BZ2 is a old game, from 1999, which makes it 7 years old. I haven't seen any other game with that type of gameplay. Maybe we could call it a Strategy-Shooter, instead of a FPRTS. BZ2 does implement this excellently, and has entertained me for many years for hundreds and hundreds of hours.

But, I no longer play it, and the community that still plays it online is tiny, only a few dozen players. It's practically a dead game, so this game-genre, Strategy-Shooter, is practically dead. I'd like to revive this game-genre by doing a game that implements that same gameplay BZ2 has, and perhapse improve it.

This Strategy-Shooter game genre never took off, so it's practically unknown to the game player community. I remember when Westwood released the first C&C, it was a total success...something new....and Wolfenstein, Doom... etc. I just feel it's sad that this game-genre has been forgotten, it's probably the best one out there.

No. That's a pure FPS, with no true RTS gameplay, even though it claims it. I saw no buildings on those screenshots, or any interface to control it. Also, there are no resources, nothing to fight for, no enemy base to destroy, except just shooting... = FPS.QuakeWars is similar to Battlefield, so not what I had in mind.

No. That's a pure FPS, with no true RTS gameplay, even though it claims it. I saw no buildings on those screenshots, or any interface to control it. Also, there are no resources, nothing to fight for, no enemy base to destroy, except just shooting... = FPS.

Really? It looks to me that there are structures to build (spawn points, energy generators, equipment stations, etc) and an end goal (destroy the other team's spawn points).Have a look in the manual.

No. That's a pure FPS, with no true RTS gameplay, even though it claims it. I saw no buildings on those screenshots, or any interface to control it. Also, there are no resources, nothing to fight for, no enemy base to destroy, except just shooting... = FPS.

Really? It looks to me that there are structures to build (spawn points, energy generators, equipment stations, etc) and an end goal (destroy the other team's spawn points).Have a look in the manual.

Well, spawn points? what the heck... aren't spawn points in every multiplayer FPS frag game? Equipment stations? Just places where you can load up with different weapons...it's not RTS as I understand it. I want some buildings that produce units, like tanks, or jets, bombers, jeeps...and I want some resource schema, like tiberium, ore, gold, oil, lumber...etc.

Now the picture is coming together better. The current "RTS" elements in FPS games are simply the ability to add instances of standard FPS elements ( spawns, power ups, etc ). You are looking for actual resource collection, base building, and production of NPC forces which you can assign under the control of various players on your team. Many of htese features were offered in BZ2 and in a format that made for an ejoyable and fairly successful comercial game. However, the game is aging and nothing else has come into that niche. You believe it to be a valid niche market and are interrested in discussing options for pulling it off.

Now the picture is coming together better. The current "RTS" elements in FPS games are simply the ability to add instances of standard FPS elements ( spawns, power ups, etc ). You are looking for actual resource collection, base building, and production of NPC forces which you can assign under the control of various players on your team. Many of htese features were offered in BZ2 and in a format that made for an ejoyable and fairly successful comercial game. However, the game is aging and nothing else has come into that niche. You believe it to be a valid niche market and are interrested in discussing options for pulling it off.

I don't know the game BattleZoneII, but from your description, I would think that the amount of options for a commander are fairly limited, at least from an RTS point of view. Can you really have a complex build tree, technology tree, and upgrade possibilities from an interface that MUST be quickly accessible during dogfights?

Oh, btw; you may be interested in this: http://www.macgamefiles.com/detail.php?item=14224It's a mod for Quake3 that introduces RTS elements like resource gathering. There is also the FPS Command & Conquer: Renegade, but I don't think anyone can plunk down buildings in that game, so it's really just a shooter.

As someone pointed out before: the reason RTS/FPS crossovers usually don't work very well is because in an RTS, you're the Big Leader (tm) and everyone follows you, to the death if necessary. In a FPS where everybody considers himself Rambo Reborn, chances are slim they will follow somebody else's orders. Especially if it means "wait for 10 minutes, stand completely idle and hide yourself, while I build some more units for a sneak attack".

About that Big Leader comment and the other will be idle, I don't agree.

You can use the same argument for every other team multiplayer game out there, there are always newbie players that don't have a clue what to do, so they just run somewhere and die, complain and quit. I really need to show you how BZ2 plays like, it's all hardcore action from first minute...a very competitive and difficult game. You're not hiding somewhere and play it *safe*, the enemy will secure all the resources, build tons of units quickly and destroy your base...and win.

About that Big Leader comment and the other will be idle, I don't agree.

You can use the same argument for every other team multiplayer game out there,

The others won't stand idle. They will ignore your orders.

Same argument? Yes, indeed. And I do In most team-oriented multiplayer games, 50% of the players in your team will not play as part of the team, they'll just do whatever they feel like, and this is not limited to newbie players. In fact, veteran players are far more likely to think they know better.

I think you have to start a cooperative multiplayer game from the assumption that 50% of the players will, in fact, not cooperate. And I believe the game will never be successfull if it doesn't ALLOW those 50% to be insubordinate.

I must admit, though, I'm basing my opinion on observations in FPS games. MMORPG games will probably see a much higher level of cooperation.

In BZ2 we have this gameplay, and there are maximum 4 players on each team, so 8 players in total (including commanders). Since the community that plays this game is so small we (the *veterans*) know everyone and their skill level. So teams are always balanced, and there are never any players that don't have a clue, or don't cooperate. Game starts when the session if full, and the same players play it throughout the game. Games can last for maybe 15-50 minutes (most of the time), 1-2 hours some times, and rarely 2-3 hours.

I wouldn't want to play in a game session that had 30 or 50 players, it would be impossible to balance teams since you don't know everyone, and impossible to coordinate. 8-12 players max, 4-5-6 players on each team, any more and the commander won't be able to cope with the stress of giving everyone new units and logistical support.

Aha, ok, now I'm with you You're talking about a typical LAN game (even if it is played over internet). I guess I was thinking more about massive multiplayer games.I agree; if the game is smaller-scale, players will be able to pick their crowd better, so you can demand more cooperation.

I rember battle zone and how it didn't work, the interface wasn't as bad as what we would expected at the time I remember your own ship beeing a tad overpowered which was needed cause as with any RTS most managing is done at the front line and well it's hot over there... you get the point.

I've seen plenty of RTS which didn't require stratagie that versus FPS which required strategy to survive, same goes for teamwork. and no a FPS doesn't need to be slow like CS to involve teamplay, actualy I found CS to be lacking it, but I'm getting to much into my personal opion now. Renegate did feature blowing up buildings if I remember correctly, building stuff has beeing around in FPS for quite some time, I remember a mod of UT 99 but I'm sure there games before that, first ones mostly incorparated building a turret, Farcry (I think) featured some more turrets, walls and complete bunkers. On the other side RTS seem to involve more and more fast clicking everyday with the hero super unit thing RTS flirts with FPS as much. Altough FPS way is more evident.

but you see the same problem popping up: RTS game is a full time thing FPS is a fulltime thing. take Warcraft 3 I simply pump up my Hero to a godlike status or build some funky army but I never get around to do both. Same with BF2 a commander can do some shooing, but not fly a plane well that has todo with the way the game is but the whole BF2 bit is still simplistic inmagine if you take the full scala of managing an army.

about incoperating both tis difficuld, difficult as in I don't see an option, some wonderfull visionairy might. there is ofcourse room for stonger hybirds, blends but you are gonna have to drop some elements a person only has so much time.

I don't know the game BattleZoneII, but from your description, I would think that the amount of options for a commander are fairly limited, at least from an RTS point of view. Can you really have a complex build tree, technology tree, and upgrade possibilities from an interface that MUST be quickly accessible during dogfights?

Oh, btw; you may be interested in this: http://www.macgamefiles.com/detail.php?item=14224It's a mod for Quake3 that introduces RTS elements like resource gathering. There is also the FPS Command & Conquer: Renegade, but I don't think anyone can plunk down buildings in that game, so it's really just a shooter.

As someone pointed out before: the reason RTS/FPS crossovers usually don't work very well is because in an RTS, you're the Big Leader (tm) and everyone follows you, to the death if necessary. In a FPS where everybody considers himself Rambo Reborn, chances are slim they will follow somebody else's orders. Especially if it means "wait for 10 minutes, stand completely idle and hide yourself, while I build some more units for a sneak attack".

I play a BF42 mod called Forgotten Hope and they are working on the followup for BF2 called FH2.A mod more geared twards realism.I also played the crap out of DoD, a HL squad-based tactical mod (at least before Valve got their hands on it)And in the FH forums many of us are actually hoping for RTS/FPS kind of gameplay.Although stuff like building placement is not possible, other things are.Ever played Codename: Panzers? Many of us would like to see a mixture of CP and a tactical FPS.People in FH do not have a problem following orders and work together to accomplish the greater goal.

Some of the stuff we would like to have are not possible with the BF2 engine.In order to give players incentives to fulfiling goals there have been quite a lot of ideas.F.i. if you tell a unit to go somewhere, you do so via the command hud and you can set a marker.You could code it so that people only get points for doing the job assigned at those markers.Even if it does not mean getting frags, doing your job gets you rewards.A lonely tanker guarding the right flank might not get lots of frags but he would get the same amount of points because he is doing the job the commander assigned him and thus beyond his knowlage perhaps helping his team by covering their flank.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org